1. Do you believe the interrogatory as first given to the jury was ambiguous? What are the possible meanings of the question? Could the jury answer the question “No” under any of these meanings and still find for plaintiff? If the jury had answered the interrogatory “No,”

and a reviewing court found that there was no evidence at all to support a finding that Diniero was not required to remove the plate, crouch down, and turn the valve with a wrench, but that a genuine issue existed on the question whether his condition was caused by this work, would the reviewing court be required to reverse a verdict for defendant that was based on the answer to the first interrogatory?